C. Dobell 
309 
its name merely because they regarded it as inappropriate. There is 
no justification, in the Rules, for such a procedure: and there is therefore 
no doubt that dysenteriae Councilman and Lafleur is a synonym for coli 
Losch, and must therefore give place to the latter if the Rules are to be 
followed. In other words, the argument which seeks to displace 
histolytica in favour of dysenteriae, will, if pursued further, likewise 
displace the latter in favour of coli. 
Most unfortunately, everybody has agreed to give the name E. coli, 
in conformity with Schaudinn’s proposal, to the large harmless amoeba 
inhabiting the human colon: and since 1903 an extensive literature has 
grown up in which this name is almost universally used with this signi¬ 
fication. It will thus lead to nothing but the most unnecessary con¬ 
fusion if we propose to adhere strictly to the letter of the law in this 
case, and transfer to the pathogenic species the name which, by universal 
consent, the non-pathogenic species has borne for fourteen years. In 
my opinion it would defeat the very object for which the International 
Rules were framed—the avoidance of confusion and the maintenance 
of order in zoological nomenclature—to transfer the name E. coli from 
the large harmless amoeba of the human colon to the dysentery amoeba. 
For my own part, I prefer to accept Schaudinn’s mistake in its entirety, 
and to continue to call the harmless amoeba E. coli, the dysentery 
amoeba E. histolytica. This is, at least, a consistent course to follow. 
For whether we call the dysentery amoeba histolytica or dysenteriae, we 
defy the law of priority. The “correct” name of the organism is coli — 
a name which can be used with complete justification by all who, 
regardless of the confusion which they will bring, insist upon the letter 
of the law. It is, however, somewhat inconsistent to replace the name 
histolytica by dysenteriae because the latter has priority, since it is only in 
defiance of the rule of priority that the name dysenteriae can itself be used. 
In such a case as this, it seems to me that it would be better to modify 
the Rules themselves rather than to transpose and change names which 
are almost universally received; and it is to be hoped that an agreement 
in this matter, acceptable to all, may be reached before long 1 . Continual 
changing—or still worse, transference—of zoological names is a constant 
1 It is to be hoped that this matter may be decided when another International Zoologi¬ 
cal Congress can be held. I may remind the reader that it was decided at the last meeting 
(Monaco, 1913), that exceptions to the law of priority could be admitted, by general consent, 
(i) When a name to be transposed had been in general use for 50 years previous to 1890, 
(ii) When an older and “correct” name had not been used in scientific literature for 
20 years. 
It will be noted that these grounds for exception do not apply to the case here considered. 
